Re: 2.95.2 missing files?

[Derek Greer <dgreer at fedex dot com>]

>
> > I'm afraid you still are misunderstanding my situation.
>
> There is a reason for that.  The reason is that you filed an
> incomplete bug report.  A complete bug report would not have resulted
> in so much back and forth and so much speculation.

Perhaps I misunderstood what this mailing list was for.  I was under the
impression
that this was a general discussion list for gcc.  The reason my bug report
was incomplete
was because it wasn't a formal bug report, just a question.  The reason
there was so much "back and
forth" going on wasn't because what I stated was incomplete in my opinion.
Originally I stated
that I downloaded gcc 2.95.2, installed it on a Sparc 2.5.1 machine, and
attempted to compile a
piece of code which relied on sockets.h.  I then went on to say that it
didn't like the version of sockets.h it was finding.  In short, I was
stating I couldn't get the gcc compiler to compile on my 2.5.1 machine.
Two or three subsequent rounds of email were basically trying to get the
responder to understand correctly what I originally stated.  I will admit,
had it been an official bug report it would have been incomplete, but the
information I gave wasn't so unclear as to be the blame of all the
confusion.  If this mailing list is mainly for the developers and for
reporting bugs then I apologize for my lack of protocol.  Someone actually
seemed offended that I said the compiler "coughed" on sockets.h and because
I said "it did not like" the header file it was finding.  I guess I can
understand the tone he responded to me with if what he expected was a
detailed list of what happened and what error messages were reported.


>  If you would like
> further help, then a complete bug report would allow those of us that
> can help you to help you.  We seem unable to guess correctly at the
> problem you have seen.  gcc 2.95.2 is widely used and used heavily on
> solaris 2.5.1.  Sockets are also widely used.  It is simply
> inconceivable to us that the problem you seem to describe exists.  :-)

Thanks ok.  As I stated, my intentions were not to file a bug report.  It
seems clear that there is
probably something out of sync with the header files installed on my
development machine.
All I really needed to hear was that there was someone out there that had
used this version of the compiler with sockets on a 2.5.1 system.
Unfortunately I didn't get this answer from the first guy until after my
3rd email.  All I got was comments informing me that I couldn't do the very
thing I knew I could (install on 2.5.1 and compile successfully on 2.6),
and suggestions to try what I stated I had already done in my first email.


>
> Well, I can invent many possibilities, but, don't want to guess at the
> problem.
>
> Could you please trim it down if you can to a small example and send
> that to us, both the original stand alone source file and preprocessed
> version of the same on your 2.5.1 machine?  We can then try and
> recreate your problem and go from there.
>
> Thanks.  And sorry that we weren't able to nail it on the first
> volley, sometimes, even in the absence of information, we can do this,
> but not always.
>
> Also, you should have used the bug reporting address, not this address.

What exactly is this address for?  Where I got this address from was
http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/software/gcc/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.2.html
and it stated "For additional information about GCC please see the GCC
project web server or contact the GCC development mailing list."  I
interpreted the "GCC development mailing list" to mean a buch of people who
develop with GCC, not the developers of GCC.  My fault.

I apologize if I have wasted your time.